DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2 of the Remarks, filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4 of the Remarks, filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 7 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the drawings, Applicant’s arguments on pages 1 and 2 of the Remarks have been fully considered by the examiner. Applicant’s argument that elements 115 and 175 do not fall under the conventional graphic symbols defined in 37 CFR 1.84(n) is acknowledged and accepted. However, the objection is maintained under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Because the written description and/or claims repeatedly recite “block 115” and “block 175” as connectors, these reference numerals must correspond to the illustrated elements in the drawing for clarity and proper antecedent basis. The purpose of the rule is to ensure drawings are "easily understood". The "generic box " (115 or 175) that is described as a functional component (e.g., a "connector") in paragraphs [0038] and [0039] of the specification acts as a functional symbol, without labeling the box 115 or 175 in FIG. 1 and FIG. 5, it is not easily understood without reading the detail description of the specification.
Regarding the objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a) that the decision feedback equalizer (DFE) recited in claims 7 and 14 must be shown in the drawings, Applicant argued that claims 7 and 14 do not recite a DFE as a discrete structural element. Rather, claims 7 and 14 recite an EOM configured to provide feedback to the equalizer to implement a decision feedback equalizer (DFE). The recitation of implementing a DFE denotes a function arising from the cooperation of the EOM 510, the feedback signal 520, and the equalizer 120, each of which is shown in FIG. 5 with a corresponding reference numeral. As described in the specification, the EOM provides feedback through the isolator to the equalizer, and the DFE adaptively adjusts equalizer settings. (Application as filed at paragraph [0035]). The specification further states that the EOM 510 facilitates implementing a decision feedback equalizer because information from the EOM 510 is fed back to the equalizer 120 to adaptively adjust settings of the equalizer 120. (Application as filed at paragraph [0044]). Every claimed element that implements the DFE is depicted in FIG. 5, and the DFE is the functional designation for the depicted feedback loop, not an additional component.
Whether the Decision Feedback Equalizer (DFE) must be shown depends on whether it is considered a novel, essential invention or a conventional feature that can be represented abstractly. Patent rules mandate that drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. It appears the DFE is considered a critical, novel structural component claimed in Claims 7 and 14, it ordinarily should be illustrated. Further, the drawings and specification work together to satisfy the enablement and written description requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The drawings must provide enough visual context to allow a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand how the EOM provides feedback to the equalizer to implement the DFE.
Regarding the objections to claims 18 and 19, Applicant’s arguments on page 3 of the Remarks have been fully considered. However, a proper dependent claim must add a “further limitation” to the subject matter of the preceding claim. Omitting “further” can create a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between the limitations, rendering the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Therefore, the addition of “further” is necessary to communicate clearly that the second substrate of claim 18 possesses the features of claim 17 and introduces an additional limitation. Because claim 18 incorporates all limitations of claim 17, it must specify additional, further limitations to be a proper dependent claim; omitting “further” muddies the distinction between the two claims. This also applies to claim 19, which depends from claim 15, for the same reasons.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerbe in view of Ragonese, Applicant’s arguments on pages 4-6 of the Remarks have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant argued that Zerbe does not discuss “an equalizer arranged on a first substrate and configured to address signal loss in an input signal to provide an equalized signal,” as recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagreed. An equalizer serves as a frequency-dependent attenuator or amplifier. In electronic systems, such as those on printed circuit boards (PCBs) or monolithic substrates, transmission media exhibit inherent physical properties that degrade signals. Signal paths (like copper traces or cables) cause higher attenuation at higher frequencies due to skin effect and dielectric losses. As a result, the higher-frequency components of an input signal lose more amplitude than the low-frequency components, causing signal distortion. The equalizer is intentionally designed with a frequency response that is the inverse of the transmission line's loss profile. By applying a “boost” (or less attenuation) to the frequencies that were most severely degraded, it flattens the frequency response and compensates for the transmission loss.
Regarding the argument that the Office Action proposes to replace the high-speed signal path 122 of Zerbe with a galvanic isolation transformer of Ragonese in order to isolate the equalizer from the CDR subsystem, the primary purpose of adding a Galvanic Isolation transformer by Ragonese is to break ground loops, eliminate common-mode noise, and handle differing ground potentials between spatially separated subsystems. If the equalizer and the CDR (Clock and Data Recovery) reside on different boards, in different enclosures, or in noisy environments (like automotive systems), inserting an isolating transformer is a standard and well-understood approach to pass the equalized signal from the equalizer to the CDR subsystem
Similar arguments apply to the independent claims 8 and 15 for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zerbe in view of Ragonese for at least the reasons stated in claim 1 and similar arguments apply to independent claims 8 and 15, the arguments for dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 have been fully considered. The examiner will reconsider any future proposed claim amendments in independent form, provided they include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the connectors “115” and “175” shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first connector type” and the “second connector type” recited in claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 16; and the “decision feedback equalizer (DFE)” recited in claims 7 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 of both claims 18 and 19, the word “includes” should be “further includes”.
Line 2 of claim 18, “a serializer to obtain” should be “a serializer configured to obtain”.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19, therefore it is also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerbe et al. (US 8,861,667 B1), hereinafter “Zerbe” in view of Ragonese et al. (US 2018/0062678 A1), hereinafter “Ragonese”.
Zerbe illustrates a communication system (117) in Figure 3 comprising: an equalizing transmitter (115) and an equalizing receiver (116) coupled to one another via a high-speed signal path (122); and a controller (141) coupled to the equalizing transmitter (115) and the equalizing receiver (116) via relatively low-speed signal paths 142A and 142B, respectively. The equalizing transmitter (115) includes a transmit shift register (124), an output driver (121), and a transmit equalizer (129). The equalizing receiver (116) includes a sampling circuit (123), a buffer (132), a tap selection circuit (128), and tap select logic (139).
Figure 31 illustrates an alternative embodiment of an equalizing receiver which may apply to the equalizing receiver (116) of Figure 3 comprising: a sampling circuit (451); a shift register (453); a clock-data-recovery (CDR) circuit (457); application logic (455); a tap data selector (461); a signal generator (462); an equalizer clock generator (459); and an equalization data source selector (463).
Regarding claim 8, Zerbe illustrates a communication system in Figure 3 comprising: a first connector type of a first substrate (equalizing transmitter 115 or IC device, col. 4, lines 54-67) configured to couple to a first device (not shown which generates the Tx data to the transmit shift register 124 of the equalizing transmitter 115); an equalizer (transmit equalizer 129) arranged on the first substrate to produce an equalized signal; a clock and data recovery (CDR) subsystem (CDR 457 of Figure 31) arranged on a second substrate (equalizing receiver 116 or IC device, col. 4, lines 54-67) to receive the equalized signal; and
Although Zerbe teaches in col. 7, lines 12-21 that the transmit-side equalization signal is used to reduce low-latency distortions that may result from any number of sources including, without limitation, dispersion-type ISI, inductive and capacitive coupling (which may be compensated, for example, by sourcing a pre-emphasis output driver within bank (131) with a value being transmitted on a neighboring signal path), and low-latency reflections (e.g., reflections that do not travel significantly further than the unreflected primary signal and therefore arrive at the receiver shortly after the primary signal), Zerbe fails to show or teach that the high-speed signal path (122) is an isolator configured to galvanically isolate the equalizer and the CDR subsystem and pass the equalized signal.
Ragonese illustrates a communication system in Figure 4 comprising a galvanic isolation circuit, such as the transformer (106 or 116) coupled between chip A including an equalizer (30) and chip B including a CDR circuit (172). Ragonese also teaches that a transformer acts as an isolator to perform galvanic isolation functions between chip A and chip B and generally falls within the scope to galvanically isolate the equalizer and the CDR subsystem and pass the equalized signal (paragraphs [0035], [0055], [0071], [0085], and [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Ragonese to modify Zerbe’s communication system by using a transformer or an isolator instead of the high-speed signal path (122) to isolate an equalizer from a CDR circuit that fits the definition of placing an “isolator” (the transformer) between them in order to provide galvanic separation while passing the equalized signal, making an additional isolator redundant.
Regarding the apparatus claim 1, similar to the apparatus claim 8, the claim features recited in claim 1 are similar to the claim features recited in claim 8 for the similar reasons stated in claim 8 above.
Regarding the method claim 15, similar to the apparatus claim 8, the claim features recited in the method steps of claim 15 are similar to the claim features recited in the apparatus claim 8 for the similar reasons stated in claim 8 above.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, although Zerbe and Ragonese do not explicitly show or teach that the equalizer is arranged on the first substrate with a first physical layer that couples to the first connector type, and regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, although Zerbe and Ragonese do not explicitly show or teach that the CDR subsystem is part of a de-serializer and is configured to reduce jitter in the equalized signal to generate a parallel data stream, since both chip A and chip B shown in Rogonese communication system are operated as transceivers, inherently, they are known as PHY (for physical layer) and combine digital adaptive equalizers, phase-lock loops (or known as CDR), line drivers, encoders, decoders and other related components. See col. 1, lines 23-26 of the cited reference to Diab (US 6,541,878 B1). Also see element 134 of Figure 1 of the cited reference to De Bernardinis (US 12,074,961 B1).
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerbe in view of Ragonese as applied to claims 3, 10, and 17 above, and further in view of Pillai (US 2019/0020441 A1), hereinafter “Pillai”.
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18, as applied to claims 3, 10, and 17, Zerbe and Ragonese fail to show or teach that the system further comprising a serializer configured to obtain and drive a serial output based on the parallel data stream, and wherein the serializer is coupled to a second physical layer on the second substrate that couples to a second connector type.
Pillai illustrates a communication circuit in Figure 1 for communications between a first PHY device (110) and a second PHY device (112) through a communication barrier (106) and teaches that each PHY device comprises a deserializer followed by a serializer configured to convert a parallel data stream from the deserializer to a serial data stream by the serializer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Pillai to implement a serializer after Zerbe’s CDR circuit (457) of the equalizing receiver to convert the parallel data stream of the CDR circuit into a serial data stream for furth processing in order to overcome the physical limitations of high-speed parallel data transfer over cables and circuit board traces.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerbe in view of Ragonese, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of CHOI et al. (US 2016/010 5273 A1), hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, Zerbe and Ragonese fail to show or teach that the system further comprising an eye-opening monitor (EOM) arranged on the second substrate between the isolator and the CDR subsystem.
Choi illustrates alternative communication systems in Figures 2, 4, and 6, for example, the communication system shown in Figure 2 comprising a transmitter circuit (TX 230) and a receiver circuit (RX 210) and teaches the RX circuit comprises an EOM (218) coupled to a CDR circuit (215) for monitoring waveforms of a particular spot of the SER/DES circuit (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Choi to implement an EOM arranged on Zerbe’s equalizing receiver between the replacement of the high-speed signal path (122) with a transformer (isolator) and the CDR circuit in order to measure and report on the state of the eye opening to provide high-quality or a figure of merit for the signal’s quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lambkin et al. (US 2021/0119670 A1) relates to a system 100 in FIG. 1 including an integrated isolator device 102 which may provide galvanic isolation between a transmitter 104 and a receiver 106, which may operate at different voltage domains corresponding to, for example, different supply voltages and/or different reference voltages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights